discussion thread

[theklng]

in the time i have been here, there has little in the ways of discussion. people are either careless or don't understand the subjects being talked about and often just give opinions or state random messages. essentially, the threads of the forums have become purposeless and wasteful.

my aim with this thread is to have discussions and discussions only. arguments upon arguments in different directions that are needed to uphold at least some structure of reason in this god forsaken place.

there is at no time any particular topic other than what you make yourself, so feel free to post your own theories or hypotheses and argument against those of others.

here's to hoping for some proper learning discussions!

--

let me start off with this:

psychology has in the past century been very underdeveloped as it has risen to become a trusted branch of science. why? because logicians and critics from other branches of science seek to only acknowledge that which can be logically proven. the problem i see with this is: we don't know enough about the world, the universe or the mind to simply rule out everything that is not logic. look at quantum physics; an illogical sense of existence in the heartland of empiric logic.

by the same example that quantum physics has shown us, i postulate that we could know much more about psychology - and all sciences in general - if we stopped looking for immediate proof of concept. in abstractions like mathematics it is useful; but in the real world and universe, the rules of abstract math do not apply 100%, and we only know things through empirical research. i ask that we treat those who comes with theories that sound irrational are given more credit, even if it transcends a sense of logic.



(TL;DR: if you didn't bother reading this, there is nothing of value to you in this thread.)

 

[Cxizent]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't science not about looking for immediate proof of concept, but using logical steps to arrive at said proof?

EDIT: Wrong word! I was talking about conclusions. Whether you prove yourself wrong or right is not what I was inferring here.

 

[theklng]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't science not about looking for immediate proof of concept, but using logical steps to arrive at said proof?

that works in abstraction, but you cannot do that with empirical (i.e., through observation) sciences. the reason they are empirical in the first place is because logic is a man made concept. how would you prove how much force gravity pulls you down with? how would you be able to discover let alone measure pressure just by step by step logic?

 

[Cxizent]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't science not about looking for immediate proof of concept, but using logical steps to arrive at said proof?

that works in abstraction, but you cannot do that with empirical (i.e., through observation) sciences. the reason they are empirical in the first place is because logic is a man made concept. how would you prove how much force gravity pulls you down with? how would you be able to discover let alone measure pressure just by step by step logic?

Well that's an awfully blanket retort; empiricality is a man-made concept. In fact, most (all) concepts could be deemed to be man made. Though you do make a valid argument, you mentioned sciences in general, and so I assumed you meant science as its most base "pursuit of knowledge".

And you prove how much force gravity pulls you down with through experimentation and measurements, which I personally would deem to be a logical step.

 

[Flying-Emu]

I'm using my prophecy powers... I see... A lock in the future! I don't know why; I just have a feeling.

Empirical science may as well be a myth. All of our measurement forms (Degrees, metrics, everything) are completely arbitrary. That's why there's cubits, inches, meters, and zipdingers. Therefore, Empirical science is an arbitrary manner of examining a phenomena.

That, is abstraction right there.

((I like the word zipdingers. I'm going to use it more))

 

[pigmonkey]

in the time i have been here, there has little in the ways of discussion. people are either careless or don't understand the subjects being talked about and often just give opinions or state random messages.

no way man it would take at least 4 power rangers to take jesus in a fight.

 

[P1p3s]

I believe science is actually the pursuant of knowledge, therefore this statement

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't science not about looking for immediate proof of concept, but using logical steps to arrive at said proof?

can't be wholly true. If you already have a concept and are looking to prove it to me that isn't pure science, although granted most of the greatest scientists to my mind started with a hypothesis many started only with a question.

For example, in the exploration of gravity (and force as a concept) Newton didn't surmise there was a centralised magnetic pull emanating from the centre of the earth and that we were all somehow composed of metallic fibres and were therefore stuck to the ground and set out to prove this to be true, he simply pondered what could cause an apple to fall to the ground and set out to discover the reason.

Having a conclusion already in mind leads to false supposition and misinterpretation (whether deliberate or subconscious) of data and other empirical evidence.

EDIT: Also you don't arrive at a proof, you uncover evidence and arrive at a conclusion. Detectives look for proof, scientists look for answers to questions they haven't formulated yet - IMO.

 

[GloatingSwine]

And you prove how much force gravity pulls you down with through experimentation and measurements, which I personally would deem to be a logical step.

You would personally be wrong.

When you actually take measurements of something, you've left the realm of pure logic and wandered into the world of empiricism.

Anyway, the ablest demonstrations of the failure of pure logic as a means of investigation are still, after a couple of thousand years, Zeno's Paradoxes. A set of deductions which by the application of pure logic prove the impossible to be true.

Empirical science may as well be a myth. All of our measurement forms (Degrees, metrics, everything) are completely arbitrary. That's why there's cubits, inches, meters, and zipdingers. Therefore, Empirical science is an arbitrary manner of examining a phenomena.

The fact that the numbers are arbitrary means nothing. The equations that describe the physical processes which those numbers are used in would be the same.

 

[Cxizent]

I believe science is actually the pursuant of knowledge, therefore this statement

snip'd

snip'd

Sorry, your edit beat me to saying that I should have included the fact that using logical steps could lead to the realisation that "said proof" is wrong. I should have used the word conclusion, my bad.

 

[P1p3s]

I believe science is actually the pursuant of knowledge, therefore this statement

snip'd

snip'd

Sorry, your edit beat me to saying that I should have included the fact that using logical steps could lead to the realisation that "said proof" is wrong. I should have used the word conclusion, my bad.

And there in lies the mark of a true scientist! The ability to revise ones conclusion on the basis of reinterpretation or entirely new data which negates the previous inference.

I applaud you sir - applaud you!
>_<

 

[Flying-Emu]

Empirical science may as well be a myth. All of our measurement forms (Degrees, metrics, everything) are completely arbitrary. That's why there's cubits, inches, meters, and zipdingers. Therefore, Empirical science is an arbitrary manner of examining a phenomena.

The fact that the numbers are arbitrary means nothing. The equations that describe the physical processes which those numbers are used in would be the same.

I realize this.

I was simply pointing out that "numbers" don't actually exist; they're a concoction of the human mind until we assign meaning to it.

For example;

4

Means nothing. Now this;

4 apples.

Means something. Therefore, "4" is meaningless until it is paired with another object. Therefore, it cannot exist except in the metaphysical sense. (I don't know if that's the proper use of metaphysical, but I'll go with it.)

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't science not about looking for immediate proof of concept, but using logical steps to arrive at said proof?

You are correct in one way, that it uses logical steps to arrive at proof, but wrong in that science actually proves anything. Science never proves, it disproves. It works like this:-

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

That's right, in science you actually attempt to prove yourself wrong. The reason that nothing can ever be proved positive is because there is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. So the phrase "as far as we know" is used.

So the statement "Science has proved there are no such things as ghosts" is wrong.

And the statment "Science has yet to show any tangible evidence for the existence of ghosts" is correct.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Means something. Therefore, "4" is meaningless until it is paired with another object. Therefore, it cannot exist except in the metaphysical sense. (I don't know if that's the proper use of metaphysical, but I'll go with it.)

However, dt'=dt/(1-(v²/c²)) does mean something, and always will, no matter what you call the 1.

 

[Inverse Skies]

Science never actually lays down anything as 'fact'. All it does is formulate theories on which more research is done to disprove previous theories and update them. For example, originally the atom was thought to have protons scattered throughout, this was proven wrong by firing nuetrons through a sheet of gold. Originally electrons were thought to exist in circular orbits when (current thinking) is they exist as a swarm of energy charge which only has a probability of being more in one place than another.

Science is a constant pursuit of developing theories further and discarding old ones. Technology refines the theories laid down by science into plausible and useful objects/concepts/tools.

 

[theklng]

Means something. Therefore, "4" is meaningless until it is paired with another object. Therefore, it cannot exist except in the metaphysical sense. (I don't know if that's the proper use of metaphysical, but I'll go with it.)

However, dt'=dt/(1-(v²/c²)) does mean something, and always will, no matter what you call the 1.

i think the point he is trying to make here is that nothing has value before measurement/comparison/judgment. we assume we live in an objective world and can all see the same things, even though we have been proven otherwise on a few occasions (example girl from ukraine who apparently had x-ray vision).

as for the human brain being predictable; yes, perhaps so. but the brain is different from the mind, and the processes that happen in thought from conception and birth to becoming an adult human being are interesting and not very well researched, since it is very hard to document. while we should not latch onto theories as truth, i think they at least deserve a chance to be out there.

 

[Cxizent]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't science not about looking for immediate proof of concept, but using logical steps to arrive at said proof?

You are correct in one way, that it uses logical steps to arrive at proof, but wrong in that science actually proves anything. Science never proves, it disproves. It works like this:-

snipinated

Yeah, I'll go ahead and edit that post now, but I did apologise for my mis-wording. Though I concur wholeheartedly with what you say, and in essence, I believe that is: Ghosts definitely exist.

...